Johannesburg - Until Africa is united, it makes perfect sense to me that ALL foreigners must have travel insurance when visiting South Africa. Let’s draw a parallel to the hospitality we extend to our own family members.
Just as when your brother visits for a braai, you readily offer support in times of need, but he accepts that should he get burned, the least you can do is bring him a scoop of ice in a wash cloth. And perhaps call an ambulance if need be. But surely not to pay for his medical bill, too?
Tell me if it is an unreasonable expectation that he shares in the responsibility for his well-being. Then tell me if this is the least your brother should expect, why would a foreigner expect more?
Now, let’s apply this analogy to the situation with foreign visitors in South Africa. The recent unveiling of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) Amendment Bill 2023, which intends to halt RAF payments to foreigners injured on South African roads, brings attention to a complex issue. Collins Letsoalo, CEO of the RAF, pointed out during his interview on 702 that the biggest recipient of RAF benefits is a foreign national, a wealthy Swiss entrepreneur who was badly disabled following a road accident near Stellenbosch – he received over half a billion rand.
This underscores the strain that such payments can place on a system designed to serve South African citizens.
To citizens of our neighbouring countries and further up the continent, until Africa as a continent achieves greater unity and harmonisation in its policies and resources, it is not unreasonable to suggest that ALL foreigners visiting South Africa should carry travel insurance. This insurance would not only safeguard their interests, but also contribute to the sustainability of public services, like the RAF, for the South African people.
To the indigent South Africans living in a squatter camp across the highway from the farm you toil at, I hope you also heard that walking on highways is illegal; a road accident death there doesn’t pay. And that kind of suicide is equivalent to throwing your life in the toilet.
Proposed amendments to the bill include that loss of income and support paid in a lump sum will be less than the current limit of about R320 000 a year, irrespective of the actual income forfeited. And future loss of income and support will be paid in instalments, not in a lump sum.
Nevertheless, it is one of the benefits the bill excludes that raised my eyebrow. I understand the RAF will not pay when crashes do not occur on a public road.
However, what stood out to me was that the exclusion also applies to cases where a family is injured or killed by a runaway truck while watching television in their living room. I found this exclusion to be very specific and wondered how many incidents like this have occurred for it to be included.
But seriously, expecting foreign visitors to have travel insurance is not an undue burden.